Get Audio Mixer State

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it transparently reads from Fairlight or the classic mixer depending on ATEM model, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. Return shape is only summarized, not detailed, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by scope and model-dependent behavior. The separate 'Returns:' sentence slightly restates the enumerated fields, but it usefully frames them as a JSON payload, so it earns most of its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does at a high level (mixer type, master settings, per-input state). For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only the shape of per-input state and master settings is left unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on the return payload, which is the relevant semantic surface for a zero-arg getter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current audio mixer state') and enumerates what it covers: input levels, mix options, fader positions, master output. Clearly distinguishable from the sibling setters like atem_set_audio_mixer_input and atem_set_audio_master_output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The read-only nature and the sibling set imply this is the inspection counterpart to the audio setters, and the Fairlight/classic note hints at when the result differs. However, there is no explicit statement like 'call this before adjusting levels' or any exclusion of alternatives, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.